So much for vetting

Australia Labor are having a nightmare campaign. Rudd resigning does not help Anna Blight. Then they have one candidate who is a 20 year old Brisbane student and trade unionist who is standing for Gregory, and has never ever been in the electorate – and worse says he may not have time to go there before the election!

Maybe the ALP should spin Gregory as being along SH1 from Brisbane, as NZ Labour did with an out of towner with Tauranga – it is only 1,000 kms away:-)

But the real nasty stuff is a 19 year old candidate Peter Watson who has been sacked. He was sacked originally for comments made a few years ago, but it seems his views have got worse, if anything:

Mr Watson also blamed Jews for the deaths of millions of people and said racist people were discriminated against.

As for what I believe in, I believe in the original values of the original labour and union movements of the 19th and early 20th centuries.

The Australian labour movement and the Commonwealth were both founded on the principles of preserving the Australian continent for the White European working man.

That is why the labour movement supported the White Australia Policy and the deportation of Pacific labourers back to their native homelands.

As an old labour socialist, I am opposed to multiculturalism, globalisation and to economic rationalism.

It is a disgrace that successive labour governments have embraced those principles at the expense of working class socialism and White Australian Nationalism.

The Australian continent must always be for the White working man and his family.”

How the hell does someone like that get selected by Labor? Even in the least winnable of seats, a political party should vet their candidates and you know ask them basic questions such as are you a neo-nazi?

Related Stories

Comments (9)

peterwn

This shows a serious lack of commitment by people in the Australian Labor Party. One would think that there would be no lack of skilled experience wannabes who would put their names forward for hopeless seats with a view of making some noticeable dent in the opponent’s majority. These people can then cite the experience gained when expressing interest in a more winnable seat. Possibly the more credible prospective Labor candidates expect to be candidate foe a seat they have some chance of winning and are just not interested in serving an apprenticeship by having a tilt at a hopeless seat.

One advantage of MMP is every electorate candidate can influence the final outcome even if in a hopeless seat. Such a person who significantly lifts the party vote in that electorate then has a much stronger claim for a candidacy in a more winnable seat or a good list position.

Ross Miller

The ALP (and to an extent the NZLP) is essentially a ‘cadre’ Party with only a minimal organisation in many electorates. Instead candidates tend to be ‘machine’ candidates promoted by Unions and/or a particular (Left/Right) faction within the Party.

In that context the selection of Watson can be easily understood. Watson is/was a creature of the Unions promoted by them and for many Unions the old While Australia policy was the holy grail. He is the ‘Left’ answer to Pauline Hanson.

Jinky

Can anyone prove this guy’s statements about the ALP’s origins are wrong? I think his belief that the ALP like the Democratic party in the USA historically had strong links to racism and white supremacy ideals.

The Scorned

They are also similar to the truth of the foundations of apartheid in South Africa….a union between white nationalists and leftwing trade unions seeking to end poor whitism by excluding blacks from jobs in favour of whites….usually by the use of minimum wage laws that stopped Blacks from offering to work for rates Whites would not countenance…

hj

You always sniff out anti immigration racism but you never (e.g):

“Among policy and analytical circles in New Zealand there is a pretty high degree of enthusiasm for high levels of immigration. Some of that stems from the insights of literature on increasing returns to scale. Whatever the general global story, the actual productivity track record here in the wake of very strong inward migration is poor. In an Australian context, the Productivity Commission – hardly a hot-bed of xenophobia or populism – concluded that any benefits from migration to Australia were captured by migrants and there were few or no discernible economic benefits to Australians. And that was in a country already rich and successful and with materially higher national saving and domestic investment rates than those in NZ.”

“Immigration and tax breaks for investment in residential property are being cited as the underlying causes of steep increases in the cost of housing over the past decade.
New Zealand now boasts one of the highest rates of home unaffordability in the world as a result of prices rising far faster than incomes, and the government’s Savings Working Group blames that squarely on the policies of successive governments.
Although “the favourable tax treatment of property investment” accounted for about 50% of house price increases between 2001 and 2007, the working group said, there was also strong evidence that rapid swings in immigration brought about price-rise “shocks”.
There was a sharp spike in immigration in 2001, 2002 and 2003 and, said working group committee member Dr Andrew Coleman, it appeared that property prices did not fall anywhere near as greatly when immigration fell again.The report added that there was little evidence that immigration boosted local incomes. In fact, the need to build roads and schools meant that net migration contributed to the national deficit. ”http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/4622459/Government-policies-blamed-for-house-prices